However, how many of these higher SAT scores are based on superscoring? I question whether the new SAT is easier. In 1980s many colleges preferred scores from one sitting. Some ROTC scholarships today still require scores from one test date.
Many students are recommended to try ACT when dissatisfied with SAT scores.
2 Likes
Increasing higher percentage of high scores had been observed in colleges that didn’t superscore or required submission of all scores before they eventually gave up on such practices.
1 Like
I remember (back in the 70’s) our class being lectured by the guidance counselor and principal that studying for or prepping for the SAT was akin to cheating…”You are really not supposed to do this and anyone who uses Kaplan I will report to the admissions officers of the colleges you are applying to” 
……
4 Likes
In case you missed it….
3 Likes
The last paragraph from that linked article:
Wow.
3 Likes
Winners and losers of de-emphasizing SATs
Winners:
Rich prep school and suburban kids.
Losers:
Everyone else.
For all of their flaws, the SAT and ACT are the only part of the application that is uniform whether an applicant goes to an exclusive prep school or a rural or inner city high school. Every other part of the application is overwhelmingly weighted towards privilege.
5 Likes
If you look at studies of colleges that have gone test optional, literally every study finds that the kids who are admitted as test submitters average higher wealth that the kids who are admitted as test optional. For example, the study at https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/publications/research/defining-access-report-2018.pdf compares the demonstrated financial need between test submitters and non-submitters at 21 test optional colleges. At all 21 of them, the kids who submitted test scores had higher average incomes than non-submitters. This is the exact opposite of the relationship you suggest.
Kids who benefit from test optional tend to be kids who test scores are a weak point compared to the rest of the application. They are more likely to be lower income, public school, URMs, and female. Kids who benefit from test required tend to be kids whose test scores are a strong point compare to the rest of the application. They are more like to be higher income, private school, ORMs (particularly Asian), and male.
9 Likes
My understanding was, Author argued test blind UCs leads to disadvantage gorminority poor who do not have CA GPA inA-G required courses. Tests allowed poor to test in to UCs without CA GPA.
“ The scholars determined that the obvious challenges faced by low-income Black and Latino students were poverty and poor K–12 education. And they found that the UC’s use of standardized tests did not amplify racial disparities. They agreed that the university should continue using test scores in admissions, but recommended that the UC begin developing its own test, which would be designed to meet the needs of both students and the institution.”
It’s not about test optional.
I’m not sure that type of studies is even necessary and tells us anything. If college admissions were grades-optional, I’d bet all my money that grades-submitters would average higher wealth than non-submitters.
1 Like
I think you’d lose all your money. The important thing is not whether a particular group averages higher or lower grades or scores. It’s whether the grades or scores are a strong point compared to rest of the application or a weak point compared to the rest of the application.
For example, I mentioned women as one of the groups that tends to benefit from test optional. Women tend to be overrepresented as test optional admits at selective colleges. An example is in the Bates study at https://www.bates.edu/admission/files/2014/01/25th-Year-SAT-report-Stanford-6.3.11-wch.ppt . Specifically it found:
Test Submitters = 48% Female, Non-submitters =59% Female
There is not a huge average score difference between men and women. Women average similar or a small bit lower combined SAT/ACT scores than men. The reason why women are overrepresented among test optional admits is instead that women average higher grades than men at all levels from elementary school to college. The stronger grades makes test scores more of a relatively weak point compared to their grades on average for women, hence women are more likely to benefit from test optional.
So in a grades optional system, the winners would be kids whose grades were more likely to be a weak point compared to the rest of the application, particularly scores. So I’d expect the overrepresented groups in a grades optional system to be men, wealthy + private school, ORMs (particularly Asian)… essentially the opposite of who benefits from test optional . Grades optional generally benefits applicants who have lower grades than predicted from their scores. Test optional generally benefits applicants who have lower scores than predicted from their grades.
3 Likes
Just another example of not matter how people try to fix the system some people are never satisfied. A lot of whining without offering any solutions.
1 Like
You keep citing some of the same “studies” that I believe to be worthless, so I’d be more than willing to make the bet. Essays, etc. are more influenced by wealth so many of the well-off can submit a “better” package without their grades relative to the less well-off.
And you keep citing no evidence besides your opinion. I’d trust what actually happened at all 22 of the previously refenced test optional colleges over a conflicting opinion without evidence to back it up.
3 Likes
I’m relying on logic, not on some so-called “studies” in which the authors may have other motives.
1 Like
From Vassar news source a couple of years ago
Prior to going test blind, the UCs did not allow poor students to be admitted primarily based on test scores. Instead they considered a large variety of factors. However, the UC system did allow poor students to be admitted largely based on being ranked in the top 9% of their HS class via ELC. In addition to being top 9% of HS class, the course requirements were as follows.
History - 1 year
English - 2 years
Mathematics - 2 years
Laboratory science - 1 year
Language other than English - 1 year
Other A-G Electives - 4 years
Many lower SES HSs offer the classes above. They aren’t requiring AP level courses and similar types of classes that might be only offered at higher SES HSs. I’d expect being in top 9% of their HS class + taking the listed courses almost certainly going to be more common among kids at lower resourced HS that having top test scores compared to the full UC class.
But he’s willing to place an imaginary bet with imaginary money based on an imaginary premise, so he must be correct.
Ty, that is very interesting.
The author draws a different conclusion based on her reading of the report. I have not read the report so I cannot speak to the differences between you and the author.
Interesting to see Chancellor of UC Riverside favors standardized tests.
“ Kim Wilcox, chancellor of UC Riverside, argued that his campus has been able to recruit and support a diverse student body, despite the school’s reliance on standardized tests in admissions.
SAT scores add predictive value in terms of student retention, GPA and eventual graduation,” he said. “Moreover, the faculty task force found that standardized tests often serve as a tool for the UC to actually increase representation in our graduate student body.”
That’s a vague statement. It’s not clear what groups change by how much with or without test scores. I suspect this is reference to the report discussion about the portion of low income kids admitted through ELC (top 9% of HS class) and statewide eligibility. The report points out that if a kid is admitted through statewide eligibility and not ELC, then it suggests that test scores were a deciding factor in their admission. Their grades alone weren’t high enough for ELC admission, but when test scores were also included along wit the grades, the student made the cut for statewide eligibility.
The report mentions that a significant number of low income kids were admitted through this statewide and not ELC process, suggesting that test scores were a deciding factor for a significant number of low income students. However, the report also mentions that more than twice as many low income kids were admitted via ELC and not statewide, suggesting that grades/rank were a defining factor and scores were too weak to be admitted statewide in spite of their high grades. Looking at the portion of low income kids in each group rather than total number, more than twice as large a portion of ELC only kids (higher grades and relatively lower scores) were low income compared to portion of statewide only kids (higher scores and relative lower grades) that were low income. Low income kids were far more likely to be in the high grades/rank and relatively lower test scores than the reverse.
This is a similar pattern to the other 22 referenced colleges above. Lower income kids are more likely than average to have scores be a relative weak point in their application, such as compared to grades. As such, lower income kids are more likely to benefit from reduced weight on test scores in the admission process than kids from other income groups. It’s certainly not every low income kid – just an overrpresentation.
2 Likes
I have provided quite a bit of data in several separate links in this thread and others. I find the “studies” that show that not including a benchmarking tool like a standardized test makes admissions fairer to be so counter-intuitive that they are self-serving and not believable.
Just a few summary thoughts:
-
If tests are so bad, why have any of them in our society? Why not eliminate all licensing exams for professions like doctors and lawyers and capital markets professionals and tradespeople, and just have them write a personal essay or two and show us how well they did in their training classes? Raise your hand if you want to be operated on by a doctor that did not pass his board exams. How about hiring an unlicensed electrician? Maybe tests aren’t all bad.
-
The fundamental problem with de-emphasizing test scores is that it becomes virtually impossible for non-privileged kids to compete with prep school kids and to a lesser extent, the kids from the wealthy suburbs. Prep schools have become machines for placing kids in competitive colleges. They inflate grades, pad resumes with made-for-applicant ECs, and their GC’s have the top schools’ AO’s on speed dial to the point of having regular update calls about the stable of applicants that each prep school is providing. The only thing the prep schools could not control was test scores. Now that is no longer a problem. If a kid blows it on a test, just don’t send it in. Tails the prep school kid wins, heads everyone else loses. Roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the prestige private admissions are prep school kids. Expect that number to go up.
-
No one is requiring the colleges to use test scores with disadvantaged kids. They can use any criteria they want to put together their student pools, including what the UC was doing prior to the test-blind mandate, which is benchmark the test against some kind of demographic standard. But eliminating the test altogether is sending a different message.
When the basic logic of de-emphasizing tests is so clearly weighted towards privilege, the pinky swears from the colleges that doing this makes admissions more fair carries little weight, particularly when they still allow for LDC hooks. If the schools were really focused on eliminating privilege bias in admissions, the LDC hooks would be the first things to go, not tests.
7 Likes